AI Replacing Artists

more time creatingConsidering that the most common use for "AI" is to take jobs away from creators like artists, musicians, illustrators, writers, and such, I find this statement hard to believe.So far, all I've seen is AI taking money away from the least-paid workers (artists, et.al.) and giving it to tech billionaires.

It sounds to me like you are approaching this from a capitalist perspective.The invention of the synth and samplers has definitely replaced the jobs of many instrumentalists. Despite that, people still learn how to play the guitar, the violin, the trumpet, etc.However, it also decoupled the roles of musician and instrumentalist so that a wider range of people can express themselves musically without dedicating a majority of their life to learning to play one or more instruments.AI art t

At this point it seems pointless to even bother to try given that AI will generate all possible artwork within a couple years.I mean. Say you get "good" at using this. What's the life expectancy at any kind of creative outlet you could have that would support you? I mean if we're talking this is fun as a toy, yeah ok. I could see that. But as a job? When everyone can paint no one is paid for it.I suppose that we could all go back to paying people who can physically lift

The problems with AI-generated art seem like a catch-22. AI is inferior to human artists because it's not creative because it only remixes past work. But if you as an artist are doing more than remixing past work, why would you be afraid of being replaced by something that can't do what you do? If what you do is genuinely valuable then the market will reflect that and using AI tools will lose companies money instead of making it.

Why not both?Given all those articles with AI generated images I bet that some artists lost their jobs

AI generated images and video are not competing against actual quality work with money put into it. They are competing against the quick photoshop or Adobe Aftereffects done by hobbyists and people learning how to work in the creative arts.I never heard HN claiming that Copilot will replace programmers. Why do so many people believe generative AI will replace artists?

They actually didn't have such a great way to sustain creatives. Poor artists is a staple of civilization. You hear about the winners, but most artisans, painters, etc had to fight hard for income.AI won't make art go away, because you still need to tell the AI what to do. But the new art won't require as much skill with a paintbrush. For instance, I'm terrible at drawing but I believe I have creative ideas. AI alllows me to be an artist too.

Because when people discuss "art" they are really discussing two things.Static 2D images that usually serve a commercial purpose. Ex logos, clip art, game sprites, web page design and the like.And the second is pure art whose purpose is more for the enjoyment of the creator or the viewer.Business wants to fully automate the first case and must people view it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. It's simply dollars for products - but it's also one of the ve

It's a different person. I'm the person you first replied to, and I don't believe good artists will lose their jobs.This was my reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34005604I also agree that artist employment isn't sacred, but after extensive use of the generation tools I don't see them replacing anything but the lowest end of the industry, where they jus

AI content generation most likely.The DALL-E/GitHub Copilot conversations are a nice hint. They were mocked for being if/else statements or "a solution looking for a problem" 1-2 years ago. Today, we're having conversations on whether they're moral; a hint that they actually represent a threat to artists.I think they'll probably become similar to tractors or digital marketing in the future. Despite tractors, farmers still have to do hard labor, they just