this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
221 points (97.4% liked)

Memes

45719 readers
1276 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (14 children)

Protecting creative jobs is extremely important, full stop. AI generation is a destabilizing development, I don't want to see it locked up in walled gardens or thrown away though. What I hope to see is a new generation of artists pushing the boundaries with open source AI tools. Yeah a lot of that's going to be bespoke porn... What am I even saying...?

We're just apes with fancy tools afterall. The same things were said about photoshop and digital art. We'll be fine, just get stocked up with some brain bleach.

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (13 children)

Every non artist who doesn’t know shit about any creative workflow always regurgitates this “it’s a tool that will empower artists” line. Every working artist who understands what they’re talking about says this will lead to the elimination of 90% of jobs and just leave one underpaid guy churning out stolen artwork at a breakneck pace.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (12 children)

Artists had the exact same reaction when photography was invented. Simply taking what artists say as gospel isn't any more rational because artists also have their own biases. Meanwhile, the problem with jobs doesn't come from the technology but from the capitalist system of relations. Maybe we shouldn't be structuring society in a way where people have to do work for the sake of doing work.

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Simply taking what artists say as gospel isn't any more rational

How about knowing what you’re talking about, is that more rational? Making a painting and taking a photograph have separate and distinct end products, so of course they’re going to fall into separate niches. If a VFX artist working for 70k a year and an AI tool that costs a 2k yearly license produce identical results, than obviously the artist’s job is going to be eliminated to reduce overhead.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Again, the problem here is with the economic system as opposed to technology. Surely you can understand this yes?

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I understand it and while it’s true, it’s also a deflection. Unless you’re an accelerationist.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

How is it a deflection? The technology exists, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. Might as well start engaging with reality. And not sure what pointing out that capitalism is the problem has to do with accelerationism. You're being incoherent here.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)