LogFAQs > #978781542

SSJKirby posted...

You're selling your talent and hard work being able to translate one piece of art into something else. AI Art doesn't exist without thousands of people's input just so someone who thinks they're an artist can get their ideas into tangible form.

Having an idea and letting something else make it for you doesn't make you an artist. AI Art exists on the backs of thousands of people's hard work and they didn't get a say in any of it.

Think of AI Art as the commision process, you want Bugs Bunny as Mona Lisa but instead of paying an artist whose work you like to do it for you, you get AI to do it. That artist just lost out on a potential customer, and that can scale up. Companies can commission AI Art faster, and significantly cheaper to get their ideas out on paper and the people responsible for AI Art being functional in the first place get nothing.

The problem with this is that since this technology is now out in the open and relatively easy to use on a personal level, what incentive does a company have to go through the effort of finding the right artist and compensating them for work which could be done for free in a matter of seconds?

I completely agree that relying on AI for art screws over human artists and further commodifies human creativity but for as long as we've been in this postmodern era, when hasn't creativity and artistry been commodified?

I think the larger issue with existentialism over AI is that we're only able to view AI in relation to capitalism and that distorts all opinions. To many, automation is a threat because people in factories and warehouses won't be able to make money since their labor wouldn't be worth the compensation. AI is a threat because artists, writers, musicians and educators won't be able to make money since their labor wouldn't be worth the compensation.