51–60 of 225 posts
Some excerpts from your website in the future: "We use AI to optimise our early-stage iterations" "AI is great for generating initial concepts. Here are some of ourfavourites, and some that didn't turn out so well!" "Did you know AI can reduce our turnaround for clients by up to 50%?" In other words: it'll help. It won't replace you.
Just focus your efforts on continuing to produce quality work, those clients never dry up.
Some excerpts from your website in the future: "We use AI to optimise our early-stage iterations" "AI is great for generating initial concepts. Here are some of ourfavourites, and some that didn't turn out so well!" "Did you know AI can reduce our turnaround for clients by up to 50%?" In other words: it'll help. It won't replace you.
Or you could have the same turnaround and half the employees, guess which is cheaper.
Which would you pick? Keep in mind you don't have to go through the headache of actually hiring people - all you need to do is not fire them.
While I think humanity is bad at predicting what the future will look like (where's my damn flying car..), _my_ prediction is that AI video generation will not be a major disrupter to ad agencies / film makers. It's a nice experiment, but I really doubt the level of artistic direction required to meet specific customer requirements will ever be replaced by "AI"
The guy who needs an image will write a prompt and paste it in to some tool. The prompt goes to a language model that's been fine tuned on those websites that share prompts and image-gen creations. The language model spits out nine variations of the original prompt that it thinks will improve the output. The nine generations plus the original prompt produce ten variations from the next gen, or next next gen, diffusers. The original guy put in his prompt and gets back a grid of 100 examples. Does he like any? Maybe mark a few, refine the prompt, mark a few more, get variations of the ones he's marked. Expand one or two, edit something out, add something in, generate another thousand variations, and he's got something really good.
If this process gets fast I think you'll see a few minutes from a non-expert can produce better illustrations than professional artists. I don't think this means that everyone will be a professional-artist-equivalent - just like anyone could deliver a pizza but not everyone is a pizza delivery driver. What it will mean is that getting professional artist output will become something that anyone could reasonably pick up and do if they do a small amount of learning to get the hang of the tools. Plus, just like you might deliver a pizza to your friends or family, if you needed to you could produce high quality art.
As a related thought, if not an upside, did you read that story about the guy who outsourced his job to China? He worked for some telecom and just hired out whatever they wanted him to do to randos overseas and basically ended up doing nothing other then going to meetings that set up scope.
I believe he was fired but - end result aside - it's not hard to see how this might fit into your situation.
I am a 2d artist and I have similar feelings. Are you as full of loathing for all the HN people saying “just integrate the AI into your practice” as I am? I like drawing stuff and I love that this pays my bills and I really have zero interest in becoming a “prompt engineer” instead. I think a strategy of creating an image of AI art as cheap and tacky is useful. For how long, I don’t know. If we’re lucky then it’ll tu…
If you are drawing completely new images then I'm not sure how competitive these tools are. They're just serving a mash up of existing works. Sure they can produce something interesting, sometimes stunning, but usually not much better than what you could just find already.
As for producing a physical painting, that has its own constraints of material and ability.
Become a plumber. It'll be a while till robots can replace you in the trades.
You’re telling a highly creative person to pursue an unstimulating job that they’re not passionate about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set? I am not a lawyer but I don't really see the "it's not fair use" argument.
> What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set? What's the difference between retelling someone's story orally, and using a printing press to make an exact replica? What's the difference between writin…
But that's not what's happening. You can't "crack open" a model to find the bitmap of a piece of training data. It's not there any more than a painting you've seen is "in" your brain. A model sometimes creates things that look similar to existing pieces if it got a ton of copies of the same image, for the same reason that most people's artistic rendition of a tree is going to be more accurate than their rendition of an anteater.
The entire AI art debate is a symptom of the fact that society is structured such that labor-saving technological advancements can harm more people than they help, and it's baffling to see otherwise intelligent and ideologically similar people fixating on this single, relatively minor technology rather than the much more consequential, broader issue of the fact that automation always moves wealth into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.