I did edit my post, but case still stands.
> Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time.
We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs.
Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now?
Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet.
Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a train, you needed to be trained, work with the conductor, driver. Now? A train driver operates a lever. Now AI are replacing those jobs for driver-less trains. Our local subway is exercising the idea.
ML, AI? Just search github and you'll find dime-a-dozen projects created from young-adults. It's only going to take a generation to burst this thing wide open.
I'm a 34 SysAdmin, it's past my time to jump in on the bandwagon. Not much I can do apart from feeding the servers that churn the cog.
> Yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone.
If you didn't have to pay and had some AI, ML do it for you producing the same results, would you?
The role of an artist will be replaced, they will co-exist. But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; where for what their talent was once worth, skill learnt will suffer to be.
Anyone can type a "A fairy-elf of a dystopian world with a abandoned castle fighting off a horde of bionic-flies". All you would need is an artist to brush up on the artwork to make it feel more "human".
Maybe for the initial design, but once done. Why would you pay the artist, when you've already got the concept image required to be trained upon?