Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9517983" data-attributes="member: 42856">The reason I am talking about image making and not artists is that AI is irrelevant to artists. They can still create art as much as they want, nothing was taken from them. They can still take their pencils and draw an absolute masterpiece. So continuing to swim upstream is a viable solution for art.What has changed is market conditions, and the ability to make a living of selling art, with the added competition of cheap AI-produced images. The effect of which can't be compared between countries (it's a political problem) but also is strange because in my country, art faculties are actively discouraging people to enroll, saying things along the lines of "Please don't, you won't find a job in art". And they have been doing this for long before the AI technology emerged. Isn't the same everywhere else? Studying art didn't have high expectation of making money out of it, and the example from the 19th century tend to show that tortured artists aren't anything news. I think we may be overestimating the impact on commissionned art being replaced by AI, given the relatively recent nature of it (it needed the Internet to make supply and demand meet, so it can't be that old) and the limited scope of it.</blockquote>