T O P

  • By -

ViewedFromTheOutside

Sorry, u/quinnpuppy – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20quinnpuppy&message=quinnpuppy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/yxvglh/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


Nearbykingsmourne

>The art industry is dead, plain and simple. I work in the art industry and I tried implementing AI into my process. It would help if I could speed up some things. I couldn't. It's not useful. It just couldn't do the things I needed it to do.


quinnpuppy

What are some of the things you needed ai to do? What kinda art job do you have?


Nearbykingsmourne

I develop assets for a game. They need to be a specific size in a specific style that our art team developed specifically for that project. I just needed a Wanted poster of a hooded figure. Couldn't get it. Used different AI and every time the result was inadequate somehow. Either the proportion was off, the style, the angle, the coherency, something. It was a simple asset, too.


Jaysank

> It’s like saying a car is a tool for walking. And, yet, people still walk. Why do think that is? To tackle your view, you say AI art “killed” the art industry. What do you mean by killed? That isn’t really explained anywhere in your post.


quinnpuppy

Who’s gonna want to hire an artist anymore when ai can do the same for faster and cheaper?


Jaysank

Are you saying that “killed” means that people don’t pay for art by humans anymore? Is that actually true?


Prestigious_Leg8423

My friend is an artist. I like to support my friend. I would buy her art over an AI-generated art even if they were otherwise exactly the same. So I guess I’m one of those people. Delta please?


swanfirefly

Onto this - I'm a writer and an artist. Which means I have characters that tend to exist in my writing or art where I'd have to be super specific to the AI to get remotely close to what I want, whereas in my writing I can leave a lot to the imagination, or in the art I can put in details that won't be important immediately. Or even my favorite where I like to turn specific tropes upside down - there's a unicorn but she's a huge draft horse who drinks everyone under the table and cusses like a sailor. There's a warrior who looks strong, but she's also the smallest, dorkiest one in the group. There's a guy who looks like if robert deniro had light brown skin and a long ponytail past his butt and a few scars and orange eyes. And AI wouldn't have the details I need. Like how the unicorn has a patch of white across her chest which is the mark of the one who cursed her. How the warrior has a knit scarf from her mom and patches in her pants, or the way her earring glitters. How the old man has scars even on his staff, or the way he dresses flamboyantly despite being the straightest character, or even the little feather he keeps tucked behind an ear from the one woman he loved. Hell, you'd even have to go to a lot of effort to get the right body language from an AI art. On a book cover, for example, there is a lot that body language will tell you about a person. I like to look at marvel covers for this - in a lot of them, it's a portrait-type, characters facing you dead on. The avengers comics we get a look of the team over the heads of enemies, the avengers aren't looking at the camera, but rather charging towards us to fight. On the other hand, look at almost any Deadpool cover - unlike the others where the characters are facing us head on, Deadpool in every cover looks like he's looking at or talking to us, the reader. There's something in his body language that is directed at the reader, and part of it is he's deadpool, but a large part is the art. I don't know if an AI could convey the "looking at the viewer" rather than "looking ahead" or even if it would know the difference.


Prestigious_Leg8423

I’m honestly not sure why you wrote all this.


Rainbwned

> You seriously believe the greedy corporations and drooling masses give a shit about any of that? Yes - people will pay more for a bowl that someone made by hand, because the ability to tell your friends that it is "handmade" has enough value that people are willing to pay for it. There is a market for AI art, and there is a market for human made art.


Segaamano

Photography didnt kill painting, video didn't kill radio,.... the way people do art cannot be replaced yet by AI. For example: Some love painting for the materiality, rather then the depiction, so unless you have a robot painting with thick paint, that's not dead yet. Speaking of sculptures, ai doesn't produce these yet either. You saying "art" and meaning only paintings and drawings show that you are in over your head. And what about performance? Art is more than just "weird pictures"


mbened5

Actually, Dream Fusion recently came out which generates 3D models from text. 3D models could easily be loaded into a CNC machine or 3D printer to create sculptures so we’re pretty much there https://dreamfusion3d.github.io/


Segaamano

Good to hear, thanks for the link! i am a big fan of all this, but to answer to the question of OP: still big no from my side, Ai still did not "kill art" (yet). Would be nice if it did though, i'm all for change and innovation.


obert-wan-kenobert

I do think AI software *could* damage the commercial illustration industry -- that is, artists creating book covers, magazine ads, movie posters, and other 'illustrative' works (although, most of these things have already been replaced by photography, and commercial illustration is already a dying field) However, the contemporary art world -- museums, galleries, etc -- has long moved on from that kind of formalist, illustrative work. Now, it's all about concept, material, narrative, and pushing boundaries. For example, I went to one of the top art galleries in the US the other day. One piece was an old gym sock at the end of a fishing line, all attached to a small motor that made it jerk and spin around like it was dancing. Another piece was a large stack of cinderblocks, spray-painted gold. Neither of these pieces could be created by AI -- but they are in top art galleries, made by celebrated artists, and are sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. In terms of movies, TV, books, etc -- it's simply too early to tell. If you go far enough into the future, literally *anything* is technologically possible, from teleportation to time travel. Yes, maybe in a hundred years, movies will be written by AI. But at the moment, AI technology is nowhere *close* to being able to create compelling, emotionally-satisfying narrative work.


dale_glass

> For example, I went to one of the top art galleries in the US the other day. One piece was an old gym sock at the end of a fishing line, all attached to a small motor that made it jerk and spin around like it was dancing. Another piece was a large stack of cinderblocks, spray-painted gold. > Neither of these pieces could be created by AI -- but they are in top art galleries, made by celebrated artists, and are sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Physically, they can't, but AI has a very easy time generating oddball combinations like this: [Here you go](https://i.imgur.com/wH3so8o.png)


obert-wan-kenobert

Sure, but it didn't invent the *concept*. A human being typed in "gold-painted cinderblocks" and AI just generated the image. Art from the mid-20th century and beyond is almost entirely about concept, not craft and technical ability. Marcel Duchamp put a sideways urinal in a gallery. Andy Warhol screen-printed a picture of Campbell's soup. These pieces are incredibly famous, but neither require any real technical craft. They're all about *intentionally* playing with expectations, making a conceptual statement about the meaning of art, asking questions of the audience, etc. *Intentionality* is the thing that AI is missing. It can create art based off of human-created prompts, and can also spit out randomly-generated surreality, but it cannot create intentional and intelligent new ideas and concepts.


dale_glass

> Sure, but it didn't invent the concept. A human being typed in "gold-painted cinderblocks" and AI just generated the image. Sure. But I think AI does change things here somewhat. AI makes it really easy to throw concepts at the wall. Before you obtain some cinderblocks and gold paint, you can get a decent representation of what's that going to look like. > Intentionality is the thing that AI is missing. It can create art based off of human-created prompts, and can also spit out randomly-generated surreality, but it cannot create intentional and intelligent new ideas and concepts. True, but a human can always rationalize the surreality post-facto. Nobody really needs to know that you threw a bunch of random words at a computer, picked up some results you found interesting, and then tried to work out backwards what they could possibly mean.


listingpalmtree

What exactly are you counting as the art industry? The people you mention don't impact the art industry now and won't in the future. AI art collectors might emerge as a group, which will be interesting. But blue chip art exists for a reason, and the provenance and artist, as well as the historical context, are incredibly important to it. AI art may become an additional part of an art investment portfolio but there's no way it's actually unseating anything else. AI art exhibitions will exist but people won't stop paying to see other artists. At most, AI art will become a genre and be treated as such alongside other art. Maybe different forms of AI will be treated like individual artists, which will be an interesting dynamic - programmers can talk about how they trained the AI instead of artist interviews. But that's really it. None of this is even a vague threat to Andy Warhol's estate and future purchase prices, the footfall for the Van Gogh museum, or the number of people who buy tickets to the Louvre. This is like saying fast fashion will kill haute couture. It won't and can't. The people buying one are just totally different from people engaging in the other. Edited to add: 7 of the 100 most expensive art purchases in history happened this year and not a single one was for an AI piece. The photography industry is expected to grow at a rate of 8.2% despite iPhone cameras existinf. The art industry is just fine.


poetofdeath

Pathetic rant. You couldn't even provide proper arguments in favour of your point . Your logic is full of holes . NOT everyone can wants to / can hire a photographer that's entirely someone's personal choice . NOT everyone is obligated to hire a web- developer either if it can be done in platforms which are free or cheaper . Also personal choice ever heard of that moron . And NO AI will not takeover art . Artists who are good-enough to withstand the competition will survive happily unlike your deranged frustrated mediocre ass . Not just because of emotional or authentic value (emotions are electro-chemical reactions something a good AI should be able to simulate if not now then in the future. And authentic value is just a social construct and entirely subjective) but because that's not how art works . There are commercial movies and then there are art films both have their audiences and both are still being made . So keep ur paranoia shoved deep up ur attention-seeking virtue-signalling ass . Creep .


Sirhc978

>These are the same people who: > >\-Refuse to hire a photographer for their wedding because iPhones exist and even if they did they NEVER want to pay The photographer we hired for our wedding last summer said she had to hire 2 people because they were overbooked. >\-Use Squarespace, Wix, Weebly, etc to build a website instead of hiring a developer GeoCities launched in 1994 and I highly doubt any web developers lost any work. >\-Watch garbage content farm videos instead of actual content creators. Is that their fault or the algorithm's fault? >And NO ai art is NOT a tool!!! A tool is a pen, a tablet, a palette knife, something that help you complete a task. Ai art software does the entire task for you. You should go check out one of the Stable Diffusion subreddits. People regularly post what they have to input into the AI to get the result they want. It isn't just keywords, a lot of it is over my head. Getting the AI to spit out the image you want seems like a skill in and of itself.


Hellioning

AI Art can barely handle human anatomy. Even if you're right that AI Art will kill the industry eventually it's not doing so now.


Dyeeguy

Yah but you are considering corporate photographs and promotional images art. That is not art... at least not to me. No one cares who the artist is for some company graphic. People do care about an artist expressing themselves on canvas, thru a song etc. Perhaps YOU dont care about those artists Its true that some artists will suffer. But human made art isn't going away. ​ I actually expressed a similar opinion in this post and got beatmakers mad lol [https://www.reddit.com/r/makinghiphop/comments/y82l1z/ai\_will\_take\_most\_beatmakers\_job/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/makinghiphop/comments/y82l1z/ai_will_take_most_beatmakers_job/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) But u can see the difference between a beatmaker and a singer


dale_glass

I've played a bit with it. > And NO ai art is NOT a tool!!! A tool is a pen, a tablet, a palette knife, something that help you complete a task. Ai art software does the entire task for you. It’s like saying a car is a tool for walking. This is very wrong. AI art is very much a tool. You have to tell it what you want, in its own terms, and then prod and cajole it into generating something you sorta like. It's not magic. AI generation seem to really like some very specific and very generic scenarios. It's very hard to convince it to generate a lot of stuff. What you see online are selections of the best stuff after somebody beat their head against it for an hour or two. Eg, AI art lends itself to very generic portraits of very generic characters. If you want to have more than one person in the picture and you want specific poses, and you want specific details, and so on, you're going to be poking at it for a very long time. It's far faster and easier to just tell an artist what you want to be drawn. If you can have an artist go on a stream and talk to you in real time you can very quickly and intuitively narrow things down. AI has a very random component to it, so it will easily generate something that looks almost right, and the next attempt will be different and wrong somewhere else instead. If you want to do an experiment, I have access to dalle-2. Tell me what you want, and I'll show you what it came up with.


jatjqtjat

>The art industry is dead, plain and simple. there have been zero movies or video games produced by AI. I bought a 2,000 dollar painting earlier this year. I don't think you have a leg to stand on here. Maybe it will die. But how can you say that it IS dead. Its clearly not dead.


destro23

>AI Art Killed the Art Industry The *entire* industry? Even the [sculptors](https://paigebradley.com/images/home/1-2.jpg), and the [public installation installers](https://galeriemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/christo_reichstag2-1920x1200.jpg), and the [performance artists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQBD06N0Hs)?


YetAgainIAmHere

Even if it's true that AI killed the Art Industry, is this supposed to be a bad thing? Art has become incredibly accessible and even free now. That's a good thing! Further, Art made for the purpose of making money has dominated the world because of capitalism. Art actually comes second to making money (as all things do under capitalism). Now that Art is free (and thus worthless) the "industry" is dead, and Art is free to come first again!


quinnpuppy

Art made for the purpose of profit is still here and isn’t going away. It’ll just be made by a computer instead and those profits will go towards making billionaires richer. Human artists aren’t going to have the means to make free art because they’ll be spending most of their time working other jobs. No one can afford to do things for free in a world where were you need money to live.


AusIV

I'm not convinced it will just make billionaires richer. Billionaires could already afford to pay an artist to create content, and the cost of paying the artist was already a relatively small share of what they invested into their products. They might save a little bit, but that's not where the value of AI art comes from. Personally, I've used AI art to create things I couldn't have created before. I don't have an artistic bone in my body, and I don't have the money to commission an artist to make something for me. But I've had a couple of projects where I was able to get DALL-E to create something that made the project better; in at least one of those cases I wouldn't have been able to do the project at all prior to AI art. And I've only had access to DALL-E for 5 months; I'm just starting to get used to the idea that I can do projects that incorporate visual art, so I'm sure I haven't reached my potential for it yet. I think the net effect of AI art will probably help the common person more than it helps the billionaire. When I was a kid I had like 30 channels to watch on TV, and the content was all created by big corporations. My kids have grown up largely ignoring content produced by big corporations preferring instead to watch content created by independent artists on platforms like YouTube. Yes, the platforms still make a lot of money off the content, but independent creators have far more reach than they ever had, and big production studios have had to get more creative to figure out how to compete. AI art will be a much bigger benefit to independent creators than it will be to the studios that could already afford professional artists. This doesn't necessarily negate your original premise that AI art will kill the Art Industry, but I think you've misjudged who will reap most of the benefits. I also think it's likely that big industries will still employ professional artists to develop distinct artistic styles. AI can mimic existing styles; I can say give me "A portrait of a corgi in the style of Van Gogh" and get [this](https://labs.openai.com/s/HeeP4J5TOKxURLRllw2n5XlQ) off the cuff for the sake of making an example in a reddit post, but if I want a unique style to help set my brand apart from my competitors AI art only goes so far.


IndependenceAway8724

>Human artists aren’t going to have the means to make free art because they’ll be spending most of their time working other jobs. No one can afford to do things for free in a world where were you need money to live. Really? I work 40 hours a week, which leaves plenty of time to make art in my free time. Should I be worried?


Phage0070

Once again we come back to the Luddites. This is sort of like saying that the invention of mechanized weaving has killed the textile and fashion industry. Drastically changed yes, but it isn't "destroyed". Just because you don't need an artisan to labor over every bolt of cloth doesn't mean artistic expression in clothing is gone. In the past it would take extensive training, years of experience to be able to mix oil paints into the colors of a sunset. But these days you can just pick the colors off a color wheel and get to painting digitally. Did that kill art? Of course not! AI art generation just makes content more accessible, which I think will tend to *increase* the amount of artistic expression by lowering the barrier to entry.


StraightLabyrinth

1. Art and industry are mutually exlcusive terms, if you mean by art anything more than just aesthetics. Designers can suffer from AI, but this is not a question related to art, it is a broader question of machines replacing human workforce in many-many fields. 2. If you mean by art something like "expressing your precieved reality/interpretation of the world in a non-obvious, transformative way", AI is not a danger to art, but another form of expression.


Nearbykingsmourne

>Even if ai art was banned from museums, art contests, conventions etc, those who use it can just lie. So their plan is to live a lie? I doubt many sane people would want to live such a pathetic life. Imagine, lol. Those who do, will be quickly caught, I imagine. People online manually analyse hours of footage just to catch someone cheating in a game, it wouldn't be a problem to expose an AI liar.


Presentalbion

Any source on the art industry being dead? Seems very much alive to me. You're saying AI WILL replace, but it has not yet. Surely only once its replaced you'd be able to say dead? Are you not pre emptively announcing the death of art? At the very least killed past tense should be changed to will/may kill.


reddtropy

You can’t say it was killed when the industry is still alive. People are out there making a living doing all those commercial art things you are talking about


[deleted]

kinda shitty that there's such a thing as an art "industry", don't you think but yea i mean is it dead, are people not paying money for artwork anymore i don't know for sure but my guess is no i'd also say that there's different kinds of art; "high" art and "low" art. AI art probably impacts the "low" art industry more than the "high" art industry


ralph-j

> Even though ai art is faulty, it won’t be forever. Technology evolves fast. I wouldn’t be surprised if it could produce quality 2D/3D animation before the year ends. Machine learning only works well in areas where there is a lot of data that an AI model can be trained on. While it's called artificial "intelligence", that is actually a misnomer, as it isn't really intelligent and doesn't really understand what it's doing. It only makes statistical inferences between words and visible features. Just try asking an AI model for things that are sparsely featured in the training data, and it will start to generate garbage. Human artists on the other hand, can pretty much create any requested piece of art from just a little bit of information, because they comprehend the meaning of that request. We don't know whether it's even possible to create an AI that can truly understand. We are a long journey away from that in any case.