Doubt any companies who needed commercial art will care at all. Most likely they will force artists to use AI to hyper speed up the process and fix some of the imperfections at the end. But there is no way they will be keeping artists exponentionaly so they can produce the same result the “inefficient” way.
I am not against using machine learning, nor am i against companies doing so. What I dont want is stolen property, which a lot of ai currently relies on.
Generative AI are trained on "stolen property" the same way as human artists are trained on "stolen prolerty". Both study previous masters, learn to copy their styles, "inspire" their own art from some combination of existing styles.
Perhaps you are not familiar with how ai and machine learning work, and that’s okay, but ai doesn’t “study” and most certainly doesn’t “inspire” itself. It builds token databases that it then regurgitates. There no resemblance of human behaviour, just a simulation. Software always did that.
Exactly and LLMs dont have emotions, audiovisual experience, human experience or any experience at all.
For humans its impossible to create same art as someone elses. For LLMs its impossible to create anything else than copy of art thats in its database.
Even if you model yourself on someones work and try to replicate it the results will be different. Its not that artists want to always create work different from each other its actually impossible for them.
Saying that art is “just” recombination of prior art is extremely dehumanising. Its like saying are ideas are just recombination of the ideas before… ok so general theory of relativity is just recombination of caveman thinking about fire and finding out how to create it?
> Exactly and LLMs dont have emotions, audiovisual experience, human experience or any experience at all.
> For LLMs its impossible to create anything else than copy of art thats in its database.
You forget that LLMs don't generate images out of its own volition. You need to prompt them. That's the injection of emotions, human experience, into the LLM. LLM provides technical means to create an image, the prompt author provides the idea behind the art, the composition, juxtaposition etc.
> Saying that art is “just” recombination of prior art is extremely dehumanising.
Based on your previous lines, you did notice that I mentioned "prior art, audiovisual experience, emotions, human experience", so I won't reply to that strawman.
Promp is injection of experience how? You pick from artist you like https://midlibrary.io/styles and try to describe what you want on the picture. Are you aware that most artists already work this way - you hire them with an assingment. No client would claim they are authors or that they injected emotion into the work.
Execution is the creative and hard part not thinking out the content of the artwork. Most artworks content is super basic like face of a person. Midjourney will make even the basic prompts look awesome.
I am sorry but you wont experience what artists do by prompting LLMs. We just stole, copied their work and possibly destroyed their lives. Shame.
We don't know that much about how exactly the humans learn and how AIs learn. Both are still to a degree black boxes.
But you're asserting that in case of AI training it's "stealing property", but imply it's not stealing for human learning. I think you need to substantiate this claim/difference. "Humans learn differently from AIs" is not enough.
I am surprised by the cognitive dissonance these people exhibit. On one hand they confidently claim that humans are stochastic parrots, on the other hand they claim they dont know how humans learn and think. They claim ai is intelligent but dont know how to define intelligence.
Right not with a high degree of confidence we can state that they are taking what’s not theirs, apply software to it, and resell it.
Everything else is their defence of said process, gaslighting people and spreading schizoid fear to obfuscate it.
> On one hand they confidently claim that humans are stochastic parrots, on the other hand they claim they dont know how humans learn and think. They claim ai is intelligent but dont know how to define intelligence.
I am surprised at the prevalence of building armies of strawmen here.
