This is the equivalent of “you should learn to do all types of complex math shit in your head because you won’t always have a calculator with you”. Except you can now whip out your phone.
Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve. It’s a bit like encouraging people to take apprenticeships in chimney sweeping or lessons on how to be a royal jester. Do what makes you happy, sure - but be prepared to do it as a hobby not as a job. Especially if the machines can outbid you.
Some jobs become obsolete as time passes. If artists are next to be this century’s town criers, that’s okay. We’ll all become obsolete sooner or later.
For virtually all of human history people brought their laundry to the riverside and beat it on rocks. This weird puritanism that “only humans should be allowed to draw pictures” is ridiculous.
If an artist can create something hand-made and unique then they’ll be able to continue doing so. Same for people who make art for the love of making art, no one’s going to stop them. But that 90% of “artists” who create corporate logos or generic furry porn may disappear, I’m not going to shed a tear.
That is in no way the same thing and I said nothing about being allowed to do anything.
If you do not look at a painting like A Starry Night and feel the human connection between you and Van Gogh’s awe at the night sky or look at the painting in the cave in Lascaux and understand that you are looking through the eyes of someone who lived thousands of years ago, I don’t know what to say. I feel sorry for you, I guess.
There is no connection like that with AI-generated art because there is no human or emotion or even eyes involved. It’s not the same and it never will be the same unless AI become as aware and able to understand the universe as we are. I won’t be holding my breath.
Over it? No. I’m not in the habit of destroying works of art. But if in a few hundred years it needs to be restored, I’d prefer an AI does it instead of a human.
Is your stance that art can only be done by humans?
This is the equivalent of “you should learn to do all types of complex math shit in your head because you won’t always have a calculator with you”. Except you can now whip out your phone.
Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve. It’s a bit like encouraging people to take apprenticeships in chimney sweeping or lessons on how to be a royal jester. Do what makes you happy, sure - but be prepared to do it as a hobby not as a job. Especially if the machines can outbid you.
Some jobs become obsolete as time passes. If artists are next to be this century’s town criers, that’s okay. We’ll all become obsolete sooner or later.
You mean like they had to do for virtually all of human history? I can imagine it quite well.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. As if art was meaningless to humanity.
I suppose you would have an AI paint over the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
For virtually all of human history people brought their laundry to the riverside and beat it on rocks. This weird puritanism that “only humans should be allowed to draw pictures” is ridiculous.
If an artist can create something hand-made and unique then they’ll be able to continue doing so. Same for people who make art for the love of making art, no one’s going to stop them. But that 90% of “artists” who create corporate logos or generic furry porn may disappear, I’m not going to shed a tear.
That is in no way the same thing and I said nothing about being allowed to do anything.
If you do not look at a painting like A Starry Night and feel the human connection between you and Van Gogh’s awe at the night sky or look at the painting in the cave in Lascaux and understand that you are looking through the eyes of someone who lived thousands of years ago, I don’t know what to say. I feel sorry for you, I guess.
There is no connection like that with AI-generated art because there is no human or emotion or even eyes involved. It’s not the same and it never will be the same unless AI become as aware and able to understand the universe as we are. I won’t be holding my breath.
Over it? No. I’m not in the habit of destroying works of art. But if in a few hundred years it needs to be restored, I’d prefer an AI does it instead of a human.
Is your stance that art can only be done by humans?
No, my stance is that you are trivializing art and its significance and its connection to our humanity.
Ah, okay.