> An artist learns from previous artists to express things they themselves want to express.
Ahh yes, that well known human impulse to produce stock artwork for newspapers and to illustrate corporate brochures. I can't imagine what the world would be like if we let cold, soulless processes design our corporate brochures!
I suppose this argument works for Art(TM), but why is it relevant to the soulless, mass produced art? Should it be okay to discard all the artists who merely fill in interstitial frames of an animation? Is "human expression" actually relevant to that?
> And again, you've sidestepped the scale
Pick one: either this is about speed or it isn't. Would you actually be fine with AI art if it was just slower? If not, then stop bringing up distractions like this. If this really is just about scale, it's a very different conversation.
> Because cars costed a fortune when new and were toys for the wealthy, before Henry Ford came along some three decades later to fix that.
Sorry, when did Rembrandt paintings stop being toys for the wealthy?
> And then, the former farriers had time to retrain for new work.
So, again, it's just that progress is moving too fast? If we just slow things down a bit and give the artists time to flee, that makes it okay?
> Hyperbolic statements with zero substance?
We haven't talked before, so I didn't know whether you were someone who was okay with automation putting people out of work. That's hardly zero substance. I'll assume this means you're fine with it, since you don't think it's even worth discussing.
> Consent
Okay, so, bottom line: you're saying that if they spend a few billion to license all that art, and proceed to completely replace human artists with a vastly superior product, you're OK with that outcome? (I'm not saying this is inconsistent, just trying to understand your stance - previously you were talking about the importance of artists expressing themselves and the speed at which AI can do things - what's actually important, here?)