automation decimated the lesser skilled labor, not the high end workforce. The highly skilled artisans got replaced by the diminishing demand for high end goods over cheap automation goods.
Completely ridiculous. My kids didn't get phones until the last two years of high school. They used the home phone and their friends called them plenty. They got bullied for being white, should I have painted them black? I taught them how to deal with bullies and that the bullies were the ones with problems. Now I have three happy early 20 year olds with friends despite having no facebook (my boys didn't want one and my daughter deleted it because she didn't like it) and not always attached to their phones. My son who is interested in several subjects follows multiple discord forums and his brother follows more tech and open source stuff. My daughter simply prefers to talk to people in person. On a side note, learning to deal with frustration is part of becoming an adult. Life isn't fair, why would you teach your children to expect it to be? Instead I taught them to find balance, there's always some good with the bad.
The reason we have fewer manufacturing jobs isn't because of automation. It's due to moving manufacturing overseas to exploit cheap labor. Also there are still many parts of this country that have factory jobs (I live in one of them, 10 different factories within half an hour drive.) and the majority have minimal automation.
Yep, I worked in a factory assembly line 'Wrangling the robots' and I'm not an engineer. They require watching and they can't do parts of the job. They get hung up easily and require alot of resetting. There's good reason factories still hire plenty of manufacturing laborers.
Artists transform materials (whether they buy them at Hobby Lobby or hack them out of a cliff themselves). AI is a dictionary of preexisting imagery. Not bad in and of itself. My problem with it is that it takes from the manual labor of artists without which it could not exist and gives the fruits of that labour to others. The argument that all art has already been done is contradicted by the fact that certain artists can be recognized by their works. The hand of the artist is a discernable thing, an artist's bread and butter if you will.
Automatic looms took jobs away so there was less work to be had. AI takes work that has been worked from the workers. They still do the job but AI takes it.
You are missing that clothing and names have really nothing to do with gender outside of society imposed social concepts and that children should be allowed to grow up in the bodies they were born in and not made to feel alienated from their own selves to the point of self mutilation.
Art is the privledge of those who make it. Artists come from all walks of life and express their creativity through whatever materials move them. The loss of manual skills to transform materials to create new art to 'teach' your 'learning tool' can only cumulate in stagnation. If 'art from a menu' is your idea of the new culture, then I am sad for you.
If children can not deal with the reality of the words, fat, ugly, white, black, girls and boys, then we how will they deal with the world around them? Scary to think that we are erasing the ability of teaching children to discern and cope. Hiding the ugly doesn't make it go away.
I for one have completely halted my plans for a website for my photography, painting and drawing. I'll be doing in person venues only. I may sell some merchandise but the pictures will be of the merchandise with the picture on it, ie. hard to copy.
yes, and every time an artist shares their exiting new drawing to the world at large, a computer program instantly mapps it and gives it away for free before the artist can even make a living off it. AI is driving out the ability to afford to make and share original art. Those 'menial tasks', by the way, are often the bread and butter that allow artist to make a living and continue to create.The end result will be a great loss of creativity and culture. The great misconception is that AI learns art just like humans by devouring preexisting art. Humans learn skills to manipulate MATERIALS, to then create imagery. AI copies those hard earned skills without permission like a library of stolen blueprints. Sad that so many people don't (or don't want to understand the difference). If I make a beautiful dress and you have the skill to copy it, so be it. If I make a beautiful dress and you take the pattern pieces I created to make the dress (since you do not have the understanding nor skill to make the pattern for yourself, but must rely on my patternmaking) well that is stealing in my book.
I have the same leaning as you. I have been following the AI art commentary and noticed that the language learning models are commented on more critically. My take is that a large portion of the commenters for AI art believe that artists learn to make art by copying existing art, so having a computer do the same is a non issue. The reality is that artists learn to use tools and materials to express art, although there are some that copy, it is not the norm. Artists study other artists to be literate in the field, not to simply regurgitate existing imagery. There is an attitude of 'the artists are jealous that anybody can now make art' even though AI art could not exist without being fed human artistic skill and effort. Any public online portfolio is now free game for AI to scoop, 'too bad, they shouldn't have put it online....These are the most vociferous viewpoints. AI art is not to be criticized, lest we are jealous luddites, yet I have found lots of thoughtful, balanced criticisms and discussions in the AI language and coding commentary.
Well, I'm looking at AI as an artist. The first notable thing I see is that I can pick out where all the refeferences come from and I find that boring. They are often not adapted to each other, there are obvious scale discrepancies and poor to little perspective. Cohesiveness is missing. Also by the arguments that I have seen, there is a very poor understanding of how artists work and develop their art. Artists transform materials, not existing art. Some artists may copy others but developing your own style is considered the gateway to making your best art. Art has many forms with a large portion of them being three dimensional. AI is a greatly limited tool that can statistically gather and render already existing imagery into a 2 dimensional format. It can be used as a tool to make art if the user has the skill to direct it with the proper prompts, but to equate that with how humans learn to create is to truly misunderstand the human process.
I have a 'fine art' degree. I embriodered, crocheted, machine knitted and beaded my work. I have made bowls and cups and forks and knives.I think your perception of what fine art is is not quite on point. Ceramics, Fibers and Jewelry/metalsmithing are majors that are considered Fine arts. Fine arts are the more traditional arts (painting,sculpture, printmaking, ceramics,photography, illustration, fibers, jewelry/metalsmithing, bookmaking as opposed to media arts (digital and timebased), and art and design (fashion, interior design, industrial design). Many 'fine artists' are multimedia artists incorporating several of the above. Although there is a craft vs art debate in certain circles it is the elite few that hang onto the idea that fine art is above craft. Art museums are full of functional art including clothing, dishes, suits of armor, etc.
I picked up some nice canvases recently at the dollar tree. Masonite, wood and paper can be painted on. Masonite is actually preferable for acryllic paints and it is quite affordable, as are acryllic paints themselves. You can paint with coffee grinds and beet juice...the exploration is endless. I come from a family of seven living in the backwoods and most of my artist friends would not nearly qualify as rich. I had a teacher once who made the most beautiful art out of entirely recycled metal junk. Art is a reflection of culture, top to bottom and ingenuity plays a big role. Ingenuity is accessible to everybody.
That is also my feeling. There is nothing like having a pile of raw materials, or a set of new inks or water color pencils, etc. and to explore the boundaries of what you can do with them. Art being made from a menu seems rather sad.
I personally care very little for copyright or copycats. I have great disdain for those who would profit off the backs of the labor of others. Saying that art often involves little to no effort just shows how ignorant you are of the subject. I am not threatened by AI and frankly I don't see it as competition, it's not really that good. Besides that the majority of my art is three dimensional. I am just saddened by how it will be misused to disrespect the effort and labor of the artists that it is feeding off of. No matter how complex AI might be, it is not sentient and it relies on human work and direction and is therefore not actually creating.
Automated jobs do the physical work. Here the computer is redistributing the physical work made by the artists, however much diluted. AI cannot make art on its own, it needs to be fed physical art and then be told what it is and what to do with it. It is not automation, it is simply a data manipulating tool.
If you have the skill to physically mimic my art, I see no problem. I am not a huge fan of copyright. AI does not have the physical skill to make art. It is entirely directed by human input and programming and relies on such to generate images that correlate to a human directed request. Computers are directed by code written for them by humans and rely on humans to input data. In this instance, programmers have written a program that feeds off of physically made art and generates statistical reiterations of the data that has been entered. Learning requires concious intellect. Actual physical art is being used, however much diluted, and capitalized on without the consent of the artist making the physical effort to create it.
Actually, you are wrong. The capital of the artist is to physically create art. AI has to be fed physically created art and the told by humans what it is being fed. AI is not 'inspired', it is statistically driven by a human written progam, using mapping of human made work, labeled, tagged and defined by more humans to render a shopping list input by another human. Humans are using programming technology, written by humans to exploit other humans physical work.
It is expected of any professional artist to have an online portfolio if they are serious about generating work. Scraping my portfolio that I put out because I want to generate revenue is a shitty thing to do. Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. AI is fed images made by humans, labelled and tagged by humans, categorized by styles defined by humans, then plotted, copied, traced by a program written by humans. Along comes a human who inputs keywords and the AI uses statistics and algorythm programs also written by humans to amalgamate a resulting 'work of art' for the human with no physical art making effort. If you were to erase all tags and labelling from source images you would find zero learning happened. Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. AI is a human made program that uses human made imagery, classified by more humans to generate a shopping list written by another human who want art that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. With no physical product, there is no AI art and that art costs the maker. Public and free are not synonomous. If you want to physically copy my art, go for it, I will applaud your skill, but taking my art and shoving it in a program with a bunch of other art to dilute the provenance doesn't change that you are utilizing the effort and skill of artists for your own gain. If you can live with that, then I am very sad for you.
I think you may have a point. I can see familiar references and recognize certain artists in ai art without help, yet when I look at the supposed source photos, for the most part, I dont really see it.
Exactly. As a professional artist, I am expected to have a public online portfolio and publicly available imagery of shows and exhibits. Saying that I'm forfeiting my stake in my art because I'm showing it publicly is a really great way to kill art and culture. AI is not learning to make, draw, use mediums in a skilled manner. AI is scraping my public images and plottlining them with the input of humans to label them, tag them and apply stylistic qualities to them.Just because there are massive amounts of data to dilute influence doesn't change that the computer is still simply doing what a human is telling it to do with imagery created by humans. If you took away the human input, labeling and tagging you will find that the computer has not learned anything. I can look at 'AI' art and pick out artists from the collated imagery. Unlike 'AI'I can't spit out the imagery by photocopying/plottlining/tracing it. I have to learn the skills of each artist involved to recreate what I see. Motor skills require practice and effort. 'AI' is not learning motor skills, which is the basis of the creation of art. It is mapping and applying statistical algorithms to amalgamate data from preexisting sources for those who want 'Art' without the effort of time or skill to produce it. At this very moment 'AI' art is being used to sell merchandise with zero credit or monies going to the people who used their human motor skills to create the backbone of this art. Sadly,this only agravates the ways copyright already restricts human art.Imagine if we lived in a world where people valued artists with respect for thier craft? I once had someone ask me how long it took me to draw a charcoal drawing. The short answer is half an hour. The long answer is that I was doing daily scketching practice and investing many hours a week doing charcoal excercises. I am currently out of practice with charcoal and as it is a medium with no erasing or margin of error, I doubt I could recreate my drawing myself without 'getting my hand back in'. It is obvious to me that this 'AI' tool is being used by humans, with the industry of humans, to exploit humans for the gratification of end user humans. I suppose humans could stop making art to feed the monster...
I lived about an hour north of Montreal, where the temperatures are always colder than in the city. I remember my eyelashes frosting and wearing a snowsuit to walk 15 minutes to work. Frostbite is a yearly danger and windchill is taken seriously.
Popular artists are being requested and the AI is turning out their work. Suffice that you are well known so that people request you and your style is distinctive then your work will likely turn up. That ups the odds quite a bit.