Did TV destroy the radio?

people will always make art for fun

I agree it will hurt artists ability to make money, but they simply have a worse value proposition.

I'd easily rather pay an AI to give me exactly what I'm imagining for next to nothing than haggle and mess around with some egotistical artist who gives you what they imagine and are really annoyed about redoing things and want a lot of money for it...

like, I get why artists are scart... but your value proposition isn't great.

that being said, there are always people who are willing to pay more for "the real thing"... kinda like diamonds.

people can make diamonds now that are identical to natural diamonds, but some people still pay more for the natural diamonds... and good artists will always have patrons.

The phrase "AI art" is an oxymoron. It isn't art. The definition of "art" automatically excludes it. And it's plagiarism in most instances.

But yes, it does hurt artists and art itself. It can't destroy human art, because the aforementioned plagiarism problem. A plagiarist is reliant on that which he plagiarises. So he never replace the thing he's stealing from or he'd never be able to produce anything new himself and quickly become irrelevant. Basically AI art is a parasite, and a parasite can't kill a host without dying itself. But a plagiarist/parasite definitely harms the thing they're taking from.

It can't do any worse than modern art money laundering.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1fxdolc/lift_mechanic_mistakenly_throws_out_modern_art_at/

Originally posted by Soren:

The phrase "AI art" is an oxymoron. It isn't art. The definition of "art" automatically excludes it. And it's plagiarism in most instances.

But yes, it does hurt artists and art itself. It can't destroy human art, because the aforementioned plagiarism problem. A plagiarist is reliant on that which he plagiarises. So he never replace the thing he's stealing from or he'd never be able to produce anything new himself and quickly become irrelevant. Basically AI art is a parasite, and a parasite can't kill a host without dying itself. But a plagiarist/parasite definitely harms the thing they're taking from.

I mean real artists are drawing copyright characters all the time and even profiting off commissions from them. AI Art is not really an oxymoron cuz an AI has generated a visual piece of art that can be observed and related to.

Not disagreeing that AI art is bad for artists in many ways but had to point this out

Originally posted by Soren:

The phrase "AI art" is an oxymoron. It isn't art. The definition of "art" automatically excludes it. And it's plagiarism in most instances.

I'm fine with it being called "AI generated images(AGI?)" to differentiate it from "art... but I think the plagiarism thing is overblown.

all artists draw inspiration from somewhere and if you asked some artist to "draw you a popular 90s cartoon character that's yellow" they'd likely draw one of the simpsons... you just can't go into their brain and find the folder marked "simpsons memories from the 90s"

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

I mean real artists are drawing copyright characters all the time and even profiting off commissions from them.

The issue isn't copyright. It's tracing. AI is basically just tracing (or photobashing) 1000's of pictures together. Photobashing can sometimes be considered transformative. Sometimes it isn't.

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

AI Art is not really an oxymoron cuz an AI has generated a visual piece of art that can be observed and related to.

Definition of art is "human creativity", there is no human creativity done in AI art, or it wouldn't be AI art.

Now hey, I do agree the literal definition is a bit obtuse. "Human creativity" maybe shouldn't be taken literally. If an alien made a painting many would still call that art sure. Because that alien is intelligent like us presumably. But current AI doesn't think, and the name is a misnomer. As there is no intelligence in learning models at all. Current AI is pattern recognising software that does the same thing a weather forecast does. Basically it's a mathematical formula that predicts the next number, and the number is assigned a pixel colour. Which this is not creativity in any shape or form, and is why I say the program "traces art". It just traces en masse, so it's hard to see it as tracing since it's tracing so many people at once.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

I mean real artists are drawing copyright characters all the time and even profiting off commissions from them.

The issue isn't copyright. It's tracing. AI is basically just tracing (or photobashing) 1000's of pictures together. Photobashing can sometimes be considered transformative. Sometimes it isn't.

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

AI Art is not really an oxymoron cuz an AI has generated a visual piece of art that can be observed and related to.

Definition of art is "human creativity", there is no human creativity done in AI art, or it wouldn't be AI art.

Now hey, I do agree the literal definition is a bit obtuse. "Human creativity" maybe shouldn't be taken literally. If an alien made a painting many would still call that art sure. Because that alien is intelligent like us presumably. But current AI doesn't think, and the name is a misnomer. As there is no intelligence in learning models at all. Current AI is pattern recognising software that does the same thing a weather forecast does. Basically it's a mathematical formula that predicts the next number, and the number is assigned a pixel colour. Which this is not creativity in any shape or form, and is why I say the program "traces art". It just traces en masse, so it's hard to see it as tracing since it's tracing so many people at once.

I know all about how AI works. I even programmed APIs to implement it on Discord.

What I'm failing to understand is besides the obvious time to create difference and flaws AI art has, a human learns through observation as well and often times repeats the same ideas that have been done otherwise the word "cliche" wouldn't exist.

photography didn't destroy art so I doubt AI will. AI will however destroy most middle management white collar jobs though

Nah. It won't do it to fiction or professional writing, either. Given that AI is only capable of mashing up and regurgitating things that already exist--rather than actually *creating* anything--it's not in a position to replace actual human creativity.

It'll probably make a bunch of talentless hacks scream that they, too, are "artists/authors/musicians," though.

Originally posted by Heraclitus of Ephesus:

photography didn't destroy art so I doubt AI will. AI will however destroy most middle management white collar jobs though

I'm sure the artists were really mad about it tho XD

like like how the icemen were really mad about the refrigerator and the radio people were really mad about the television...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8r-tXRLazs

progress sucks for those left behind :/

Money laundering is already a big issue with art, honestly if you want to make money out of art you are pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ delusionnal already, just saying.

Other than that no it won't destroy human art.

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

Do you think AI art will destroy human art?

No. A.I. can copy human art, but can never match the creativity of the human mind. People experience life and envision things in ways that A.I. can not. The human mind is still much more complex than A.I.

Originally posted by Chibi Life:

I know all about how AI works. I even programmed APIs to implement it on Discord.

What I'm failing to understand is besides the obvious time to create difference and flaws AI art has, a human learns through observation as well and often times repeats the same ideas that have been done otherwise the word "cliche" wouldn't exist.

Honestly, it depends. I do remember an old Little Big Planet 2 interview X-Play had with a developer back in the day. And I remember that developer saying the first game mostly saw imitation. And that by the time the second game released, players were starting to innovate more and mature as an audience. And that the developer was pretty proud of that.

I think a fair bit of artists start with leaning more into imitation before they move to more innovation later in their endeavours. Humans are capable of that. Aliens or other intelligent life would be capable of that too presumably. Current AI, not so much.