I am incredibly happy about this. Otherwise it's like lamenting the invention of the car because it would eliminate all the jobs making buggies and whips.
> No one paying cares if it's just copied from other works
There are probably zero artists alive who didn't learn by copying other works or learning to make art in that style.
It's no different with an AI. An AI is something that learns from others and creates it's own art. There isn't anything illegal about it any more so than you learning to draw and making characters that are similar to Mickey Mouse.
You can trademark a specific thing but not a style.
So at the end of the day, how is it any different than a person doing it other than the fact now a person won't be getting paid?
>I am incredibly happy about this. Otherwise it's like lamenting the invention of the car because it would eliminate all the jobs making buggies and whips.
Between road accidents, air pollution, noise, horrendous cities and suburbs built around car use, and so on, I don't mind lamenting the invetion of the car either...
In general it's pretty naive to celebrate new technologies without considering drawbacks. Especially if they are just stuffed down everyone's throats, whether they want them or not, and even more so if the technology has the potential to eliminate human creativity and cheapen creative output. Even more so if the technology has so much potential for abuse (for government surveillance, automated spam, all the way to far worse cases, so much so that even its creators warn about the potential existential threat).
I guess what's the remove of creativity, or the existential threat, and countless of other negatives, compared to cheap logos, or (assuming it lives up to hype the way you say) killing off graphic design as a profession?
>So at the end of the day, how is it any different than a person doing it other than the fact now a person won't be getting paid?
In the removal of human creativity in the design, and its delegation to an algorithm.
> even more so if the technology has the potential to eliminate human creativity
This is completely overboard. People will always be creative. There is no way in which this stops anyone from being creative but actually allows not artists to be much more creative.
It also allows the same for artists as they can now create in styles they aren't skilled in.
> killing off graphic design as a profession?
It likely will dramatically kill it and free up those people for other types of jobs as they can now be more productive.
Humans will still continue to be creative and draw and paint. That won't change.
No reason to hold society back just to hold on to some jobs
>This is completely overboard. People will always be creative.
Just not in the fields where AI will replace them? Hardly a consolation that "people will always be creative" in e.g. interpretive dancing, if the music in our culture end ups being dominated by AI musak.
And I don't just care for my own music consumption, to be consoled that "some people will still be doing human music". I also care about the role of music in society in general.
I'd say the same for graphic design and illustration. Yeah, some people will be creative in those fields still. But I don't care for a world where 90% of the illustrations and graphic design we see are AI crap.
And I'm not saying it because AI does great illustrations, but because it does crap illustrations cheaper - which for the undiscerning manager will be "good enough", and for spam farms and the like will be a godsend.
>It likely will dramatically kill it and free up those people for other types of jobs as they can now be more productive.
>Humans will still continue to be creative and draw and paint. That won't change.
No, just the ability to make a living out of it, as opposed to getting a drab office or factory job will. That, and being confronted 24/7 by AI "art", would be the changes.
>No reason to hold society back just to hold on to some jobs
Who exactly did sign up for that, and who said this is "forward" and not following it's "holding back"?
Not every BS we invent is a possitive. Nor is "increased technology" == "better".
>> People will always be creative.
> Just not in the fields where AI will replace them? ... if the music in our culture end ups being dominated by AI musak.
Will AI dominate music? Probably. Is there anything that can be done to stop that? No. Even if you outlawed it in the US it won't stop it. It's coming and there is nothing that can be done. If that is a good or bad thing IDK. Most modern music is so awful that to me this doesn't matter anyway.
> but because it does crap illustrations cheaper
The work it outputs is astounding, if it was crap no one would want to use it.
>>Humans will still continue to be creative and draw and paint. That won't change.
>No, just the ability to make a living out of it, as opposed to getting a drab office or factory job will.
AI is coming for factor and office jobs too. But yes this will cut the ability to make money on it.
> Who exactly did sign up for that, and who said this is "forward" and not following it's "holding back"?
It doesn't matter what someone signs up for. That's not how the world works. More efficient processes take over less efficient ones. Paying someone 7k to work on something for 2 weeks is much less efficient than generating a similar image in 2 minutes for 25 cents.
Few people are going to be so enamored with the image that it would matter if it's not quite as good (though it may be better).
> Not every BS we invent is a possitive. Nor is "increased technology" == "better".
Anything that increases efficiency without hurting people is a good thing and it's why we enjoy the quality of living we do now.
I didn't say that all technology is beneficial. I think smart phones have been a disaster for society overall. They have brought a lot of productivity gains but has been a double edged sword.
Same for the internet too. Lots of benefits but now all the nut jobs can congregate and share conspiracy theories and the youth is exposed to a lot of insane stuff a much younger age.
I mean stuff that guys from the 50's never saw in all their life. So yeah technology can definitely be bad. But as far as productivity gains you can't stop it and the freight train is coming. It will bring a higher quality of life in practical terms but who knows what it does to society.
> No one paying cares if it's just copied from other works
There are probably zero artists alive who didn't learn by copying other works or learning to make art in that style.
It's no different with an AI. An AI is something that learns from others and creates it's own art. There isn't anything illegal about it any more so than you learning to draw and making characters that are similar to Mickey Mouse. You can trademark a specific thing but not a style.
So at the end of the day, how is it any different than a person doing it other than the fact now a person won't be getting paid?