• Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So you would say that the tool devalues the artist?

    I know it’s not so simple as that, but in essence the argument that you’re making is that as technology improves the baseline technique available to beginners, the gap narrows and devalues the work of an experienced artist.

    In my opinion, that’s backwards. Art is subjective by its very nature. People using ai to generate art without a background or technical expertise in that art aren’t artists in the same sense that a person building a house in the Sims isn’t an architect. Does the Sims allowing a player to design a house devalue the job of an architect, whose purpose is to create something actually valuable? I think a architect would laugh at that notion.

    In the same way, an artist creates value in a way that a non-artist cannot, even with ai generation being a factor.

    • MossBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t make that specific statement, no, but I do have sentiments that might be considered adjacent to that.

      Suppose you have a watercolor artist who has spent years understanding their medium and mastering it. Then you have an ai artist who gives a prompt (simplifying here) of “watercolor painting of X in the style of X” and gets a result that looks even 80% of the way there. In the eyes of average people, the ease of achieving that result does affect in some fashion how they look at the work of the trained artist and how they value it.

      We have examples from one of the key Dungeons & Dragons artists for instance where he has said in no uncertain terms that ai art has absolutely diluted the value of his work. People create ai works in his style and people can no longer tell what’s his and what’s ai. Then poor artistry in the ai works gets attributed to him.

      The speed with which people can create ai work means that we will increasingly be buried under a glut of mere content and most creative work will be trivialized and devalued except for those who themselves have the skill to recognize what goes into skilled art.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I understand what you’re getting at, but that doesn’t mean that that artist’s work is any less valuable. In your example, the artist in question is still being paid to create genuine art. I suppose there is an argument there that with ai available to create similar art, he may otherwise lose commissions to lesser quality substitutes. But on the other side of the coin, it’s possible that many people emulating his work would accept a much lower quality substitute for convenience and wouldn’t have paid him to create anyway, particularly given that d&d art is often used for conception and token purposes and not quality.

        On the topic of ai art affecting that artist’s reputation, I can see how it might become a problem that certain ai pieces are incorrectly attributed to an artist. That problem seems largely unavoidable though to people unwilling to differentiate or inquire as to who the artist is in the first place. That might also be something subjected to copyright law in the near future, like an ai water mark being required on any ai generator.

        I still don’t think that creative work is even going to come close to being trivialized. Ai art is free to the public, and yet I still know several artists who live off of commissions, one of which is my wife, because ai can’t yet produce what people actually want to see with the refined quality that they can get from a real, human artist.