A.I.

[pdub]

i’ve got a local, hard copy of Adobe CS5 that i still use because i refuse to adopt the cloud platform

I cannot do this in my profession but I just won't save to the cloud.
I did have a hacked CS6 but that won't work with newer files anymore.

[twocoach]

"Agreed. Jobs wont be lost, they will just be moved to other professions."

Which is kind of my point in the original post.
Artists jobs are going to be lost in the short term and then 'moved' to other professions that quite simply are less artistic.

Telling a computer to generate an ink drawing in the style of Mike Mignola of a vampire bat and then scrolling through 1000 of them and picking one is barely artistic.

I don't think things like art or the performing arts fall into the same category or are at the same level of risk. They aren't simply tasks to be performed.

[twocoach]

i think this is it

Nope.

[KUTradition]

it’s working for me

the embiid function must be jacked

the title: “ Has AI reached the point where a software program can do better work than you?”

(if you wanna google it)

[pdub]

"Agreed. Jobs wont be lost, they will just be moved to other professions."

Which is kind of my point in the original post.
Artists jobs are going to be lost in the short term and then 'moved' to other professions that quite simply are less artistic.

Telling a computer to generate an ink drawing in the style of Mike Mignola of a vampire bat and then scrolling through 1000 of them and picking one is barely artistic.

I don't think things like art or the performing arts fall into the same category or are at the same level of risk. They aren't simply tasks to be performed.

Then you aren't following what is happening with Stable Diffusion and the like.

[twocoach]

"Agreed. Jobs wont be lost, they will just be moved to other professions."

Which is kind of my point in the original post.
Artists jobs are going to be lost in the short term and then 'moved' to other professions that quite simply are less artistic.

Telling a computer to generate an ink drawing in the style of Mike Mignola of a vampire bat and then scrolling through 1000 of them and picking one is barely artistic.

I don't think things like art or the performing arts fall into the same category or are at the same level of risk. They aren't simply tasks to be performed.

Then you aren't following what is happening with Stable Diffusion and the like.

That's just another medium to utilize to generate art. It replaces nothing from what I have seen. Creating more mobile games didn't result in a bunch of platform games no longer being developed. It just created more job opportunities for artists who do art work for games. So why wouldn't Stable Diffusion just create more artists?

[twocoach]

it’s working for me

the embiid function must be jacked

the title: “ Has AI reached the point where a software program can do better work than you?”

(if you wanna google it)

No, I can see the article. My answer is just "Nope, AI has not developed to the point where it can do my work better than me" and I am hip deep in designing automation to perform a portion of my job right now. It can do some pieces "better" (faster/with more certain accuracy) than me but only because I am programming it to do so.

[pdub]

If you consider art this:

"Telling a computer to generate an ink drawing in the style of Mike Mignola of a vampire bat and then scrolling through 1000 of them and picking one"

Then we ( as a working artist myself ) are just going have to agree to disagree.

[KUTradition]

it’s working for me

the embiid function must be jacked

the title: “ Has AI reached the point where a software program can do better work than you?”

(if you wanna google it)

No, I can see the article. My answer is just "Nope, AI has not developed to the point where it can do my work better than me" and I am hip deep in designing automation to perform a portion of my job right now.

ahh, gotcha

[twocoach]

If you consider art this:

"Telling a computer to generate an ink drawing in the style of Mike Mignola of a vampire bat and then scrolling through 1000 of them and picking one"

Then we ( as a working artist myself ) are just going have to agree to disagree.

That isn't the creation of art. That's just doing a google search. If it scrolled through 1000 of them and generated some sort of unique design based on the input then that's different.

[pdub]

"Hey I need an illustration of a vampire bat for this article."
"Sure, I have a list of illustrators who we usually go with, range from 500 to 1500 per piece."
"Oh, hm, that's cool. But like, I've heard of this thing called Stable Diffusion. And it's free. AND it mimics tons of artists styles. So can you just sign up for that and pick a vampire bat?"
"I'm a producer."
"And now you're an artist!"

[twocoach]

"Hey I need an illustration of a vampire bat for this article."
"Sure, I have a list of illustrators who we usually go with, range from 500 to 1500 per piece."
"Oh, hm, that's cool. But like, I've heard of this thing called Stable Diffusion. And it's free. AND it mimics tons of artists styles. So can you just sign up for that and pick a vampire bat?"
"I'm a producer."
"And now you're an artist!"

That stuff has been going on for years. Since the creation of digital image files.

[pdub]

LOL.
No it hasn't.

Stock has been an option.
But stock can be reused by other publications. And stock also pays the artist, albeit a small amount ( or however much the artist lists it depending on the site ). But it's the artists choice to put their work up there.

Now? You don't even need stock. You don't need the original artist. You just need to go and sign up and pick from a generated image that doesn't employ artists ( ESPECIALLY if you can put in specific prompts to mimic particular styles ).

[pdub]

So basically, I agree, at a fundamental level, that it isn't the creation of art.
And I disagree that this, this level of creation of art without artists, has been going on for years.

I guess IF you wanted this to work, you clear these models completely, and restart from only public domain images, legally purchased stock after artists are allowed to opt in on the stock sites, and anything directly fed from an artist participating ( shame on you said artist but hey, grab that quick cash ).

Then i'd still hate it but wouldn't hate it as much.

[Mjl]

Now that we have cameras nobody is ever going to draw a still life.

[pdub]

Again, totally different.

[Mjl]

No, the idea about using people's art without their consent to train models is different.

The "there's not going to be a need for artists" part - that's the same

[pdub]

I didn't say there won't be a need for artists but that artists, I think lots of artists, will be out of jobs.
To be sure, there will still be select people who appreciate the tangible original human created piece in their home/business, so some artists ( fine artists ) will still have avenues to work as one for a living.

And photography certainly caused a hit, i'm sure, in still lifes and landscapes in peoples homes.
But the difference here is that photography is a direct replica of real life by a machine ( more of a tool actually, not really a machine ) - and still does require someone to find/frame/compose the subject matter.

What we have here is a direct replica of art by a machine ( and built from unwilling artists ).

So art, i.e. fine arts, like ink, paints, pencils, etching, digital painting etc., is being mimicked and the appeal of humans creating that, especially for commercial purposes, will be lessened with the advancement of computer generated art from machine learning.

Anyone will be able to generate a subject, instantly, with just a few words, in whatever style, be it photography, ink, paints, pencils, etchings, digital paintings, they please. It will take little talent. It will take even less inspiration.

[pdub]

Also, as a side effect, and you can call this a bit holier than thou, but as something that I invested time and passion into learning, and that other full professionals have invested far more time than I have at, you'll have endless spam art on social media ( which I try to avoid but today to promote yourself if you're a full time artist, you want to be sure you're present ) of people who now think they are artists for typing a few words. "Look what I did". Like the high school sophomore who buys a camera and now is a photographer ( which, yes, they are, but i mean, come on ).

When I was applying to art schools in high school, you had to make a portfolio of work and submit it.
One of my classmates, who wasn't particularly technically skilled, took photographs of her aunt's work and created slides from those, saying it was her own, and applied to schools. This was bullshit to me then. And it's somewhat similar here - it is bullshit to me now.

[zsn]

A few years ago I was traveling so much on long-haul international flights and had the opportunity to watch some fantastic documentaries (highly recommend “Neat”, about bourbons - more on this later). There was a series on how we arrived at the modern music scene and its history. There was one analogy that struck a chord (pun not intended) with me and applies somewhat to this discussion.

They were comparing studio recordings to live performances and how they have changed from merely recording a live performance to a carefully constructed piece, using technology specifically developed for this purpose. They correlated a studio album to a painting and a live performance to a photograph. In the former the artist takes the time and effort to create something that is truly his/her vision using just a few performers. Whereas a live performance has to have many performers doing their best with little to no margin of error.

Other than that they are both visual media, photos and paintings will always have their place in society.

Now, speaking of bourbon, there is this company in San Francisco which creates “barrel aged whiskey” by using a neutral spirit and adding the flavor compounds. https://endlesswest.com/. Their signature product is called Glyph and we tasted it as part of our distilled beverage club at my former company. This would be the equivalent of an AI whiskey. The unanimous verdict was that while it tasted good it didn’t come close to a real whiskey. Btw, this conclusion was arrived prior to the participants knowing the details about it - the person who brought it just said that it was an interesting locally produced whiskey. It was after the fact that she revealed how it was made.

So, no, most often the sum of the parts does not make the whole. AI is just not there, yet.