Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9076889" data-attributes="member: 467">Photography robbed portrait painters of opportunities, and they were pretty damn mad about it at the time. Just because a technology is disruptive doesn't make it wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it won't be broadly adopted and implemented. Autotune, anyone?Artists don't "deserve" income any more than machinists do, and machinists have to some degree been replaced by automation. The three or four people per field crew in my industry don't deserve jobs even though technology has made their labor obsolete.Now, to be clear, I don't think AI will likely replace fine art anytime soon (besides in the faddish way that NFTs were temporarily very popular; there are certainly rich people that will pay millions for AI generated "fine art."). But commercial art is just that, and in the same way that generations of artists had to adapt to photography and desktop publishing and digital art and photoshop etc... commercial artists will have to adapt. That is just the way it goes. And that goes for more than visual artists. Writers like myself will have to adapt too, as will musicians/sound artists, and film makers and animators, and so on. Generative AI will become part of the creative landscape of popular media in the same way every other technical achievement has.</blockquote>