Earlier quoted context omitted.
> future artists having their jobs taken by AIs that's simply not going to happen. as in every technological development so far, this is just another tool. 1) artists create the styles out of thin air 2) artists create the images out of thin air 3) computers are just collectors of this data and do not actually originate anything new. they are just very clever copycats. you're looking at an artist tool more than anyth…
4) If computers get good enough at 1) or 2), then there'd be much bigger problems, and essentially all humans will become the starving artists. Also, I'm not so sure that language models like SD, Imagen, GPT-3, PaLM are purely copycats. And I'm not so sure that most human artists are not mostly copycats either. My suspicion is that there's much more overlap between how these models work and what artists do (and how h…
all of these assumptions miss something so huge that it surprises me that so many miss it: WHO is doing the art purchasing? WHO is evaluating the "value" of... well... anything, really? It is us. Humans. Machines can't value anything properly (example: Find an algorithm that can spot, or create, the next music hit, BEFORE any humans hear it). Only humans can, because "things" (such as artistic works, which are barely even "things", much more like "arbitrary forms" when considered objectively/from the universe's perspective) only have meaning and value to US.
> when we will all be killed off by our robot overlords
We won't. Not unless those robots are directed or programmed by humans who have passionate, malicious intent. Because machines don't have will, don't have need, and don't have passion. Put bluntly and somewhat sentimentally, machines don't have love (or hate), except that which is simulated or given by a human. So it's always ultimately the human's "fault".