I mean, It's bad art and all but it's here to stay, maybe this will make it harder for weirdos making a living off of drawing bad art i couldn't care less.
I mean, It's bad art and all but it's here to stay, maybe this will make it harder for weirdos making a living off of drawing bad art i couldn't care less.
90% is a huge overestimate, honestly. AI art is terrible at making entirely novel concepts, or at replicating a concept accurately without a bunch of existing source material, and it will almost certainly remain that way. And most of what people are actually using it for right now, are cases where the person wouldn't have paid an artist to do it if AI art were not an option.
If 90% of artists were primarily doing things that AI would easily displace, then I could not imagine why anyone would want to become an artist in the first place if AI image generation wasn't a thing. Actual art skills work a lot better, machines don't really have a good sense of taste nor are they innovative on their own.
I'm considering clean-up and the stuff that gets outsourced as part of the 90% that will be made redundant down the line, the graphic designers that make horrible :corporate-art: too, that work is extremely tiring and mind numbing but at least it meant working with your hands
My perception might be skewed but I don't see a lot of what gets put out, especially a lot of commercial art being the kind of rehashing that AI can do pretty well
If those animation sweatshops are automated it still means people that enjoyed their work (despite horrible conditions) being out of a job and being left to work the other horrible jobs in the periphery
And it means people that can't attain a high enough technical ability to compete or seamlessly edit AI output being left out in the cold, it raises the barrier much higher and probably compromises a lot of undertrained (people not trained since childhood by under bourg upbringings) out in the cold
Editing AI output is actually one of the easier things to do, since you can literally just mask off part of an image and tell it to try again. The most you'd ever have to do is draw a crude sketch of what you want to go there (probably a limb that was missing). The barrier of entry for running stable diffusion locally, at least financially, is probably somewhere around $300 for a used graphics card made within the last 4 years or so, and maybe lower than that. You can get a lot more done on more expensive hardware and with more specific technical ability, sure, but... that's not completely new. The tools for using it are not as user friendly as they could be, but they're at a point right now where probably anyone who can do digital art could start doing AI art well within a few days. And knowing how to draw on your own is extremely helpful and speeds up the process massively, so people who are already artists have a huge advantage.
Honestly I think too much of the AI art discourse is rooted in misunderstanding. I don't think we can shove AI generation back into Pandora's box, and I haven't seen any serious proposal contradicting that, so I'm mostly concerned with mitigating impacts and having people get the most benefit possible out of it. I like to inform people about what it can do, because I sincerely believe it can be an overall beneficial tool, but half the time I get screamed at by people who are just in fight-or-flight mode over it, and who also tend to believe that a straight text prompt can generate anything that isn't just shitpost quality when it simply doesn't work like that. I can understand why, but it doesn't make it any less tiring.